About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea

About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea (/showthread.php?tid=1124)

Pages: 1 2

About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea - aitor iriarte - 02-03-2004

Avete omnes, 
Dr. Raffaele D'Amato has asked me to post this: 
 
Recently I read Mike Bishop's comments about the reconstruction of a Praetorian in Graham Sumner's book 'Roman Military Clothing I', based on the painting from the Domus Aurea representing Hector and that in his opinion this figure did not represent a Praetorian Guard in lorica segmentata. 
 
This was for me pretty strange, considering that on p. 21 of his own book 'Lorica Segmentata vol 1', he did consider it as a possible reference to a Roman soldier with segmentata. I myself firmly believe there is no doubt that this soldier is a Praetorian Guard and that he is definately wearing lorica segmentata. 
 
 
The painter of the original fresco was a very observant man. The soldier wears a torque around his neck, sports a beard following the Greek style, has a balteus with round studs, a red mantle draped around his body, has greaves on his legs, carries a bronze shield and finally wears a cuirass with segments that are half bronze and half iron. The cuirass itself is worn over a subarmalis with golden and white pteryges from the waist in turn worn over a green tunic. 
 
It is a pity that the drawing of the Praetorian in Graham Sumner's book was published in black & white and is missing entirely from Mike Bishop's book. Some details are not discernable in photographs in books but believe me, I have seen the original with my own eyes, and the horizontal segments of the lorica are perfectly visible, moreover the central vertical line which separates the torso, is clearly indicated. The upper parts of the cuirass are not shown as a single piece as one would expect to see if it were indeed a muscled cuirsass but with hinges and vertical lines. The fact that the fresco represents a mythological scene should not cloud our opinion to the fact that we are seeing a real soldier represented here. 
 
Linking the Praetorians with the Prasina faction in the circus by the inclusion of a green tunic surely reflects reality. This link confirmed by other written and pictorial sources reminds us that the personal tastes of both Praetorians and emperors existed in an age where modern concepts of uniform did not exist. We should also remember that Nero himself was a passionate admirer of Greek culture and at one time even abandoned Rome to live in the land of Homer. 
 
Every other details of the equipment on the Domus Aurea fresco are based on actual archaeological sources. For example the greaves are based on identical exapmples found in Pompeii. A similar helmet can be seen in the definitive publication on the Armour of Imperial Rome by H. Russell Robinson: the Pseudo-Corinthian helmet specimen published by Robinson on page 137 is dated to the first quarter of 1st century AD and therfore contemporary to the Domus Aurea source, even if sligtly more embellished. Another helmet of the same type is still visible on the Villa Albani relief, also worn by a soldier in Lorica Segmentata in all probability another Praetorian. This particular relief is of flavian date and the details of the lorica are very well represented and detailed. 
 
Eastern -Greek helmets have been found in other first century contexts such as Pompeii and Nemi lake. This shows this style was probably used extensivly by the soldiers in the Imperial court and in Italy. Of course especially ÃƒÂ¨lite soldiers could easily purchase such kinds of elaborate and expensive equipment. To judge by the Richborough find, helmets of 'attic' type were still worn by Roman soldiers nearly four centuries later! 
 
 
Bronze specimens of lorica segmentata from the legionary fortress at Nova are for the moment published only in Archaeologia Bulgarica 1999, vol. I. But current classifications of roman armour are for me without logic. On Trajan's column for instance we can see up to 17 or 18 different types of lorica segmentata. Some of them are confirmed by the specimens found, but others refer to other types for the moment still undiscovered or maybe awaiting publication. The Kalkriese type lorica for example was unknown to us until only a few years ago. I know 47 representations of Lorica Segmentata in Roman art including examples worn by cavalrymen and I can not believe that Roman artists reproduced fantasy. 
 
I do not believe that the Kalkrise, Corbridge and Newstead types are exaustive, there were a lot of different types and Trajan's Column and other monuments even show Lorica Segmentata in leather! Why should there be a problem with such armour. Leather armour was used by the Sea Peoples in 1200 BC and was still used by Armenian infantry in Roman service in the Xth century AD. The armour represented on the column corresponds to reality. Why should the ancient artists represent the details of arms and armour so attentivly one minute but fantasize the next? 
 
Another example of this way of thinking appears in Ross Cowan's latest book'Imperial Roman Legionary AD 161-284'. when Dio Cassius (77.7.1-2) says Caracalla's Phalangites are dressed in the ancient fashion with pike and linen cuirass Cowan thinks this unlikly. However when the Historia Augusta says the phalangites of Severus Alexander were armed like the other troops this is acceptable. 
 
Was there a typical uniform? I think not. Look at the tombstones of the first to third centuries AD and you find an answer, no! It would seem however that the academics of the Anglo-Saxon world are only happy if Roman soldiers look like those of the Ermine Street Guard! 
 
To often we try to pidgeon hole into stereotypes. Because we can not find the original leather lorica of Marcus Caelius, we have transformed it into a mail shirt! Not only that but a mail shirt with an ombelicus? This is fantasy, but not the fantasy of a Roman artist! 
 
 
Only an attentive comparison of classical art and written sources, allied with archaeology wherever possible, can give us an exact dimension of the Roman World. I advise everyone to abandon modern concepts and to look at the Roman pictorial sources as a true representation of reality. Roman paintings, mosaics and sculptures provide us with a snapshot of the past. Unfortunately we too often presume to know more than the people who lived 2000 years ago and who saw these soldiers for themselves. 
 
 
 
Dr. Raffaele D'Amato Diploma in Romano-Byzantine Law University of Turin - External contributor to the Athens University -School of Philosophy - Material culture - Prof. Taxiarchis Kolias - Researcher in ancient military and medieval history 
 
 
E- mail [email protected]

Re: About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea - Anonymous - 02-03-2004

"I do not believe that the Kalkrise, Corbridge and Newstead types are exaustive, there were a lot of different types and Trajan's Column and other monuments even show Lorica Segmentata in leather!" 
Neither do I. Like helmets there were probably a lot of different types and finishes all following some sort of general specifications imposed either by fashion or by official decision. 
Bur I wonder how Dr D'Amato can differentiate between metal and leather on sculpture?

Trajan\'s Column and reality - Gregg - 02-03-2004

Quote:<hr>The armour represented on the column corresponds to reality. Why should the ancient artists represent the details of arms and armour so attentivly one minute but fantasize the next?<hr> 
 
I wanted to say that, regarding TrajanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Column, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be hard pressed to convince me that the Sarmatians and their horses went into battle wearing scale armor body stockings. 
 
(Though I'm curious what position the River God Danuvius will take on this issue...) 
 
Gregg

Praetorian/Hector/whatever - Matthew Amt - 02-04-2004

Bless you, Gregg! I like to give Trajan's Column and other artistic evidence as much weight as possible (more than some folks), but it just ain't safe to assume it's all accurate. There are too many details which don't seem to agree with reality. In the future, sure, we may find that more of them are accurate than we thought, in fact I'm sure we're all looking forward to finds like that! But in the meantime, for the purposes of making reconstructions (2-D or 3-D), we play it safe and go with what can be backed up by harder evidence. 
 
On the Golden House figure, all I have is a photo to go by. LOVE to see the real thing, and I am very grateful to Dr. D'Amato for the description of the details. Presumably the angled thing I am seeing is a baldric of some sort, over the right shoulder and under the left arm, and not a girdle plate which has popped its rivets and is sprung out of place. 
 
I would also love to hear and see more about these "bronze" lorica parts from Nova! Fittings or plates? 
 
Again, sure, we only note a few types of lorica, and we know we don't know everything. But probably most of the different types he notes on the Column would turn out to be variations of one or more general types. And most of that simply depends on the whim of whomever is doing the typology, of course! For instance, if it were up to me, the Corbridge types would be joined by a Chichester type, but that's based on just one shoulder plate so you can see how shaky this gets in a hurry. I'll have to remain skeptical about the leather lorica, though--just had a HUGE discussion on this very topic over on the Sword Forum. Same for the "Sea Peoples" wearing leather armor... (Talk about abandoning modern concepts!) 
 
It sounds like the Professor is a general advocate for using pictoral sources regardless of archeology, whereas I think most of us on this board prefer to put our main trust in the artifacts and like to see how they fit into the pictoral record, using artwork to fill in the gaps. (How the heck else would we know what a lorica hamata looked like, for instance?) So it's mainly a clash of viewpoints and I don't see either side giving a whole lot of ground. But bring him back and make him sign up, Aitor! He's probably got a LOT of good information we can use! 
 
Valete, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

Re: Praetorian/Hector/whatever - aitor iriarte - 02-06-2004

Hey Matt, 
You know that we, Late Romans, are not very interested on those segmented cans (He, he, he!) but Graham Sumner has sent me a copy of the controversial painting. Unfortunately, I cannot post it here and I wonder if you could do it if I'd send it to you by e-mail (it's rather big, 1.2 Mb) 
I can advance you that not so many details as those mentioned by Prof. D'amato can be seen on the pic but perhaps enough at least to affirm that it could be really a segmentata. 
It's up to you! 
 
Bene Vale 
 
Aitor Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 2/6/04 7:49 pm

Re: Praetorian/Hector/whatever - NightHunter24 - 02-06-2004

"segmented cans* first time I hear of the expression. 
that is so damn funny!

Yes, please! - Matthew Amt - 02-06-2004

Yes, please, Aitor! [email protected] (those are both "L", not "ONE".) My machine can handle it, no problem. The version Mike Bishop sent to me is only about 250 K, so yours might have more detail. 
 
Oh, and we prefer "lobster suit" or "armadillo shirt" to "can", if you don't mind, hee hee! 
 
Many thanks! Vale, 
 
Matthew/Quintus

Re: Yes, please! - aitor iriarte - 02-06-2004

You're welcome, Matt! 
The pic will cross the Ocean in a few minutes! 
 
Aitor 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aitoririarte>Aitor Iriarte</A> at: 2/6/04 9:09 pm

Re: Yes, please! - FlaviusCrispus - 02-06-2004

Aitor, my good, good friend! 
 
Can you please, please, pleeeeeese send me a copy of the photo of the Domus Aureus "praetorian" as well? It has a huge bearing on my research into pteruges (especially as worn with the "segmented can"). 
 
Send it to the following addresses: 
 
[email protected] 
 
[email protected] 
 
Multas gratias in advance! 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA

Re: Yes, please! - aitor iriarte - 02-07-2004

Matt, 
I'm receiving more and more petitions for the image! 
I sent it to you becouse I needed somebody with a website to post it here, so everybody could see it. Please, will you be able to do that? 
As I told in a prevous post, most part of the details mentioned by Prof. d'Amato cannot be seen at all on the pic. For instance the pteruges are a quite undistinct mass, so as most part of the cuirass is. Hinst are interesting to be seen and discussed here, though. 
The best way would be having it displayed here, so everybody could decide if it is interesting or not! 
 
Aitor

Re: Yes, please! - FlaviusCrispus - 02-07-2004

Aitor-- 
 
I have web space, an FTP program, and everything needed to post the image on RAT. Don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I'd happy to post the image, if you'd just send it to me. 
 
[email protected] 
 
[email protected] 
 
If anyone else is interested, I've got a line on obtaining a copy o fthe Archaeologica Bulgarica 1999 publication that supposedly has an article on the discovery of a bronze lorica segmentata. Will also get an English translation. 
 
T. Flavius Crispus

Re: Yes, please! - richsc - 02-08-2004

Just to mention it, please consider whether the image is copyrighted or not. Legio XX 
Fortius Conamur

Re: Yes, please! - aitor iriarte - 02-08-2004

Hi Rich, 
Yes, Graham Sumner specified that the image is copyrighted by Germanicum. Notwithstanding, he added that it was available only for research purposes. I don't understand much about copyrights, what do you think? 
 
Aitor

Re: Yes, please! - aitor iriarte - 02-08-2004

Luca and Flavius, 
The image is trvelling through cyberspace now... 
 
Aitor

Re: About the Praetorian of the Domus Aurea - FlaviusCrispus - 02-08-2004

Avete, amici! 
 
Here, through the kindness and generosity of Aitor Iriarte and Grahamn Sumner, and with kind permission of Germanicum, is the Domus Aureus "Praetorian": 
 
<img src="http://www.legionsix.org/Praetorianofsmall.jpg" style="border:0;"/> 
 
This image is intended for research purposes only. It is reduced to about half-size from the version Aitor sent me; I also ramped up the contrast and sharpened it a bit. 
 
Now, opinions, please? Is Graham's reconstruction in "Roman Military Clothing I" plausible? Does this show a soldier in a lorica segmentata, or something else? 
 
T. Flavius Crispus 
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis 
California, USA Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=flaviuscrispus@romanarmytalk>FlaviusCrispus</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/legiovi/vwp?.dir=/Flavius+photo&.src=gr&.dnm=flavhead2.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 2/8/04 6:01 pm